No, this blog is not ‘assisting the corrupt Establishment in hiding the Truth from the British public’

1st July 2021

This is from a submitted comment under one of my posts on the Daniel Morgan independent panel report (of all things):

‘Now, why would DavidAllenGreen want to assist the corrupt Establishment in hiding the Truth from the British public. Does Green hold the public in contempt too?’

The rest of the comment, and the commenter’s earlier submitted comments, will not be published, because I cannot vouch for the substance of the serious allegations.

But the lack of this publication does not mean, I hope, that I wish to assist the corrupt Establishment in hiding (either capital-T or lower-case-t) Truth/truth from the British public or indeed from anybody else.

Indeed, this blog has done as much as it can to set out commentary in respect of the serious and substantiated findings of ‘institutional corruption’ against the metropolitan police.

I have even done a video film for the Financial Times on ‘institutional corruption’ in the metropolitan police, which is hardly an example of the establishment protecting the establishment.


But to gain traction with any serious charges of corruption, one needs a methodical, evidence-based approach.

An approach where the ‘c’ word – corruption – is the natural description of what is otherwise set out in detail and is sourced.

There is no doubt that there is widespread corruption, for that is the nature of those with power – and there is no doubt that more could be done by the media to expose the corruption.

But nothing useful is gained by putting the cart before the horse – or the dinghy before the national flagship.

There are different ways of going about it – and because this blog prefers an evidence-based approach in its commentary that does not mean that it is an establishment stooge.

(Perhaps this blog would say that, wouldn’t it?)

The difficulty with making out charges of corruption or of other serious failures is not in making the accusation – which is easy – but in making the charge difficult to evade or dismiss.

Of course, in this post-truth age of hyper-partisanship it may well be that sources and details are not enough – and here on thinks of the accumulation of adverse information about Donald Trump or Boris Johnson – but if anything is to ever have impact, it will need to have some substance to it.

The ‘corrupt Establishment’ is deftly skilled in brushing off even the most serious of complaints and is especially good at deflection when there is more heat than light.

In making it as difficult as possible for things to be deflected is not to hold anybody in contempt.

It is instead to takes things seriously.


Please support this blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without support.

If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.


You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).


Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.






9 thoughts on “No, this blog is not ‘assisting the corrupt Establishment in hiding the Truth from the British public’”

  1. Crikey! If that’s really the impression this commentator has of your efforts David, he’s seriously unskilled at “reading the room” – he literally could not be more wrong about the underlying tenor of your contributions.

    I get the sense that there’s probably a lot of “baggage” there…

  2. Well said.
    Exactly what you should expect from an esteemed Law and Policy blog.
    In the context of your valued opinion, maybe you might comment some time on the perspective of Jed Mercurio, Alistair Morgan, Peter Jukes and Carole Cadwalladr who yesterday explained and expressed their shared analysis but from different perspectives.
    (I think the Zoom interview with the 4 of them, streamed last night, was subscriber only but well worth seeking out. )

  3. You wrote: “There is no doubt that there is widespread corruption, for that is the nature of those with power.”

    I agree with your first statement, but disagree with your second. The two things can be decoupled and very often are. The English judiciary, for example, has enormous power but is very largely uncorrupt. Certain police forces are notoriously far more corrupt than others. Some might well be hardly corrupt at all. There are numerous examples of individuals who were not and have not been corrupted by power, amongst them some senior police officers, many civil servants and almost all senior judges. There may be many MPs, although perhaps not the majority, and even some past government ministers.

    I’m sure I could think of other examples. Some captains of industry, for example. Anyway, I think I have made my point.

    The extent to which power and corruption are decoupled is some kind of measure of the degree of development of a civilised society. The absence of enforcement of existing constraints on corruption, from which I believe we in the UK are presently acutely suffering, signals a degeneration and loss of former ideals.

    1. “The English judiciary, for example, has enormous power but is very largely uncorrupt”
      So it’s acceptable to have some corruption in the one organization that the public relies on for complete integrity?
      Let me give you an example of how this alleged ‘minimal’ corruption plays out in reality.
      Starting with a case (to improperly remove me as executor from my late uncle’s estate for wanting the administration to act honestly in the performance of their duty)
      The High Court judge had no legal basis to remove me so engaged in unwarranted character assassination to achieve the mission of his masonic mates to remove me from office.
      (The appeal system does not work, based on its desire to protect its image rather than serve justice.
      The ‘Micky Mouse’ regulatory bodies are the same.)
      This perverse and obscene judgement has plagued my life for (to date) some 15 years, costing well over £250k, eviction orders, bankruptcy actions and, as doubtless intended virtually destroyed an honest man’s life.
      In your mind, is this acceptable, since seemingly you believe some corruption in the UK judiciary is ok?

  4. Preventing deflection by the establishment is so important. For several years, I have been involved in campaigning for greater transparency in the investigation processes regarding health service complaints and in particular, the role of the Ombudsman (PHSO). I share the view that such investigations must be fair to all parties and evidenced based. Failures in investigations also need to be evidence based as in the Daniel Morgan murder case report.

    In the latter half of 2020, three reports, written by respected people, eminent in their fields, were published. The reports included the following comments:

    The Cumberlege report – highlighted a “disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive culture”.

    Dr. Bill Kirkup – The life and death of Elizabeth Dixon. “The most troubling aspect of compiling this report has been the clear evidence that some individuals have been persistently dishonest, both by omission and commission, and that this extended to formal statements to police and regulatory bodies”.

    Ockenden report – Shrewsbury and Telford Maternity Services. “There must be an end to investigations, reviews and reports that do not lead to meaningful change”.

    It is easy for your readers to find what I consider evidence of ‘deflection’. The website PHSOthetruestory has published a letter I recently wrote to Linda Farrant, Chair of the Audit, Risk and Assurance Committee. The PHSO response is published on the same website under a ‘Dads Army’ parody. Compare the letter and the reply and you will see that, rather than answer direct questions, politely put, the preferred option is to heap contempt on the questioner.

    I am pleased to be following your blog now David. I hope you and your followers will recognise what you are saying in the example I have given.

  5. You tend to see this a lot when you take part or follow campaigns. At the start the goal is clear, nobody knows each other and spirits are high. As time progresses, months, perhaps as in this case years, the situation may change and the campaign will have to adapt. Personalities can become an issue.

    The once united front could split, individuals within the campaign may feel their views are not being heard and resentment sets in. At this point sight of the overall objective can be lost. People within the campaign get disenchanted and start sniping at each other in public. The real opposition look on with a smile or worse. Two notable examples are the “Remain” campaign with its frequent internecine fighting and the current trials and tribulations of the Labour party whose factions are tearing it apart in full view, instead of working together to defeat the Conservatives.

    In the case of Daniel Morgan, I wouldn’t have known about it without your work. The institutional corruption has been exposed and despite the efforts to suppress, the report is in the public domain, partly due to the pressure you and others brought to bear by publicising the issue. I would see that as a big success in terms of the campaign. The person alleging suppression might want to take some time and review their thinking in this context.

  6. On free view to air TV in the EU this week was a repeat showing of the film “ Braquage a l’anglaise”.

    The film is of course pure drama but you can read up on the factual case on the internet although will have to wait until 2071 to be able to read certain missing documents !

    The case raises serious points about corruption but is based on events which predate UK membership of the Common Market.

    Post Brexit Britain it appears does not seem to have much of an appetite for fundamental change and reform going forward.

    Perhaps the Morgan case can safely be consigned to history alongside this film.

  7. It seems difficult not to reflect on the proposition, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men…”, attributed to Lord Acton (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902) in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887 – Transcript published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907).

    Perhaps ’twas ever thus!

  8. To accuse your blog of supporting a corrupt establishment is as absurd as calling white black.
    Corruption shows itself where a person or institution, for private gain or protection, puts its own interests above the interests of those whom they are appointed to serve.
    The word has now been bandied about so much that it has degenerated to become a term of general abuse. This diminishes the opprobrium of the most serious forms of it and weakens the force of indignation and outrage needed to combat it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.